YOU OBSERVE A TRAFFIC COLLISION! SHOULD YOU HELP?
Most
states maintain a “good Samaritan” statute to immunize any person who, while
acting in good faith and without compensation, renders emergency care at the
scene of a traffic collision or other type of emergency.
A
recent California case considered the plight of Alexandra who
was injured in a traffic incident during the early morning of November 1,
2004. Alexandra had gathered together at a private
home with friends the previous evening, where some marijuana was apparently
shared and smoked. After others arrived,
the group went to a bar about 10 p.m. where they consumed several drinks. Everyone remained at the bar until about 1:30 a.m. on November 1. Alexandra rode as a passenger in a vehicle
driven by one of her friends. Others
rode in a second vehicle.
The
driver of the vehicle in which Alexandra was a passenger lost control and
crashed into a curb and light standard at about 45 miles per hour.
The force of the impact caused the front air bags to deploy and
Alexandra, in the front passenger seat, was unable to exit the car.
The
companion vehicle pulled to the side of the road and everyone exited to
assist. One of the individuals, a
friend, removed Alexandra from the vehicle.
In
the aftermath, Alexandra sued her friends, alleging that even though she was
not in need of assistance after the accident, and had only sustained injury to
her vertebrae, the act of dragging her out of the vehicle,
caused permanent damage to her spinal cord and rendered her a paraplegic.
The
court noted that there were a variety of factual disputes. The defendant who removed Alexandra from the
vehicle did so because, according to her testimony, she figured the car would
catch fire or “blow up.” The friend
testified at deposition that she saw smoke coming from the top of the vehicle;
however, these facts were in dispute.
There
was also a dispute as to how the friend removed Alexandra from the car. The friend testified she placed one arm under
Alexandra’s legs and the other behind her back to lift her out of the car. Alexandra testified that the friend used one
hand to grab her by the arm and pull her out of the car “like a rag doll.”
Emergency
personnel were called to the scene.
Alexandra suffered various injuries, including injury to her vertebrae
and a lacerated liver that required emergency surgery. There was a dispute whether the accident
itself caused plaintiff’s paraplegia.
Is
the friend liable for the injuries suffered by Alexandra? Before you rush to raise
your hand with what you assume is the correct answer, read further.
The
issue presented to the court was whether the good
Samaritan law applies to any emergency care rendered at the scene or
whether it applies only to emergency medical care rendered at the scene
of a medical emergency.
The
court determined that although the friend may have believed that Alexandra had
to be immediately removed from the court due to a risk of fire explosion, that
risk was not a medical risk to her health. Therefore, moving her from the car was
therefore not emergency medical care.
In
reviewing the California statute, the court thus distinguished
between immunizing a good Samaritan from negligently
administering medical treatment to a traffic accident victim laying on the
highway and immunizing someone against negligently removing the victim from a
vehicle.
As
a general rule, one has no duty to come to the aid of another unless the person
has created the problem or peril, or unless there is some special relationship
between the parties which gives rise to a duty to act.
The
duty to act, for example, is illustrated by placing a person in peril or
increasing the risk of harm. In one Los Angeles case, an officer investigating an accident
directed the plaintiff to follow him into the middle of the intersection where
the plaintiff was hit by another car.
Another
illustration, involving an omission, rather than the affirmative act of
instructing an individual to proceed into an intersection, occurred in a case
where a deputy sheriff promised to warn an individual of when a prisoner, who
had made threats on her life, was released.
The county was held liable when the sheriff failed to warn and the
prisoner murdered the individual to whom the promise had been made.
The moral of the story? If
you undertake to come to the aid of another, be careful to exercise due care in
all that you do to help!
[This column is intended to provide general information only and
is not intended to provide specific legal advice; if you have a
specific question regarding the law, you should contact an
attorney of your choice. Suggestions for topics to be discussed
in this column are welcome.]
Reprinted from Fabricare
Myles M. Mattenson © 2007
